Anyways. Right now, I'm actually in the middle of writing a series(albeit its baby steps). So I'm in desperate need of Critique before I approach a publisher with my stuff. It is rather combat oriented, although, this chapter is one of the.. cleaner ones. Well, thats kind of a given, judging by the fact that the main character is in a heilo for most of the chapter. So, yeah. If you want some Critique.

FEARED ENEMIES: CHAPTER TWENTY SEVEN

Quote:

The UH-102 rose into the air as I charged up the lasers. I lifted into the air above my squad as two UH-1Y’s flew to them, and picked them up.“SABER Actual, this is command. You’ve commandeered the Experimental Weapons Platform Helicopter.(EWPH) You are going to do as you are ordered for now. Your squad is being ordered someplace else. You’re going behind enemy lines to drop off some equipment to Navy SEAL teams in heavy fire. You are aware of the dangers of this craft, no?” “I’m fully aware that the lasers could implode, killing us, and absorbing a half a block in the energy explosion.” I said back, noting the troubles an AV-191 sometimes had when the chin laser was properly maintained. That had claimed about 107 lives. Plus, an M1A2 TUSK tank. I rolled my eyes, and leaned the craft to the left, to engage Red Star LAVs moving up a highway.

“Cover the right flank! OH I'm a loaf of bread with no raisins! BTR! GET DOWN! MENDOZA! TAKE THAT SOB OUT!” I heard a company’s LT say as I flew over them. I hovered, placed the redicle on my HUD onto the BTR-80 coming down the road, and let loose two 70mm HE rockets from the two side mounted rocketpods. The sidegunners were busy with the soldiers below the pass, trying to take us out with an RPG-50 rocket. I would deal with them as soon as I dealt with the ones at hand, the ones more actively trying to shoot me down with 14.7mm MG nests. I sped forward, GAU 19’s blazing. I watched as a Red Star MG gunner was reduced from a human being about to soil himself to a bloody pulp from the amount of .50 BMG rounds sailing downrange. I glanced over my shoulder, and breifly saw an M1A3 TUSK moving in. “Thank you for the assist, Forge. ‘War Machine’ will take it from here.” “Copy. Out.”

EARTH: LOW ORBITUSS Solace, Bridge

“Sir! I have eyes on a meteoroid headed to Earth!” A bridge officer said.“Alright. How big, and how soon is it going to hit?” Commander Wilson said.“Same size as the one that caused the Tunguska event in the early 1900’s.” “Where’s it going to hit?” “Chernobyl, Russia.”“Good. Hell, it might vaporize the Plutonium or force Ivan to shift his focus elsewhere.” “Sir, but what of the civvies!”“Tell Russia to evacuate them.” He said in a deflated voice, obviously wanting to want Russia to find out about the new Meteoroid when its too late. He rubbed his temples, and sat down in the command chair.

FALLEN: NEW MADRIDCapitol Building, presidents office

As the time of Fallen’s first president came to a close, a new one was elected, and Sonya was making a return to normal military life, commanding her troops. The only reason she had accepted the presidency is because she was pleaded to do so. A new law was passed, so that her successors couldn’t go past 10 years, two five year terms. She had gone 15, but had realized that was a mistake, and the election was soon underway by mid-2050. There were no humans running, it was illegal. Same as for the US, which she found to be understandable. She’d probably help the CCOF and NATO forces to defeat the Red Star countries, yet again. She like the tactics of war, much like the one human that had special place the heart of most Fallen’s, Mark Forge. She chuckled at the thought of him when he came to Fallen, sent here unwillingly by his own government, apart of a super soldier program he didn’t know about. She packed up her stuff, and waited outside, dressed up, to meet Fallen’s new president. She didn’t like leaving office like this, but it had to be done. She shook his hand, and boarded the modified UH-60 Blackhawk to go home.

EARTH: NORTH KOREAOutskirts of Pyonyang, near a major Red Star supply highway

I looked at the M1A3 TUSK Tank as it rolled down the highway, Two USMC M3A3 Bradley’s and a Stryker IFV moved up the streets, clearing the path for more troops in M1151 and M117 Humvee’s. I moved downward to face the enemy’s trying to take me down, AK-120 fire dinging off of my windshield. I noted that the two lasers were completely charged. “Stay clear! I’m gonna fire the two lasers!” I said over the radio. I crossed my fingers as I aimed the two 80mm shafts. A blue streak of energy streaked out of the ends of the barrels, and exploded along the Red star ranks as two UH-1Y’s droned by. My squad. I grinned, and began to move back onto my objective. I had two clicks of heavy fighting to wade through in this heilo, and I was prepared for it. The side gunners were just happy they were able to live through the crafts’ first laser strike. However, they still had alot longer to go. I peeled off from the engagement as two US Army AH-64D Apache Longbows moved in to finish my work.

I moved along the crisscrossing highways that the civvies never used. The highways were for Red Star trade between the countries of said treaty. “SABER Actual, this is command. You are going to be delivering the experimental weapons to SEAL Team One. They will be popping Red Smoke when you’re in view. Also, be advised, the Colonel you’re after is also in the area. As soon as you get the supplies dropped off, I’ll let you go after him, but without your squad. They’re tied up in assaulting the Red Star second line of defense.”“Roger, SEAL Team One is going to be popping Red Smoke, uh, whats my callsign? Same as before?”“Affirmative. Out.”

I met little resistance, save for a RPG-50 incoming warning every now and then, but hey, that’s what Electronically Warfare equipment is for, right? Within a short amount of time, I saw red smoke, and I began to clear myself an LZ with the lasers, the GAU 19’s and a few Hydra rockets. They feel back to a more defensible position as I began to come to a hover 5 feet off the ground. The Marine gunner facing the SEALs began to hand them the cases as the other opened up on the retreating Red Star forces. As soon as the last box was loaded off, the gunner pounded on the side, the notification to get going. I moved up, and out of the SEALs line of fire. I looked around at my cockpit, and saw my ACR and M30A2 Railgun. I had swapped out my Massoud for it. I began my way out of the combat airspace, and into the morning sun so I could drop off the UH-102 back at the FOB to refit the heilo, and to get me back into ground combat so I could take out the SOB who executed my squad-mates.

I landed, and got out. I grabbed my weapons, and I jogged to a UH-60 about to take off, some US Army Rangers aboard it.“You guys going behind the lines?”“Yes sir!” The lieutenant of the bunch said.“Well, it looks like I’m joining you, then.” I said, taking the last unoccupied seat. Normally, it would have been occupied, but the squad lost a man back at the battle for Odintsovo, Russia. I loaded my ACR, and racked it as the Blackhawk began to rise into the air. The two gunners had M134Es. The Rangers each had FN SCAR variants, the LT with an ACR. They were pretty quiet, knowing that with the force they were going up against, some of them wouldn’t make it. I put a new 2 round mag into my M30A2, and let it charge up. The battery for it was a mix of Fallen, and Human materials, giving it the ability to hold as much power as 10 car battery's in something the size of a toy car. And the battery on this thing is the size of two bricks. Its a good thing that its hyper efficient to charge, utilizing very little power over the minute it takes to charge the electromagnetic coils that wrap around the barrel. Each battery lasted about 500 shots. I looked out at the cratered outsides of Pyongyang. Several B-2 Sprit bombers and A-10C’s flew by, B-2’s doing their last runs for tonight. The B-2’s obviously alot higher than us, or the A-10C’s. Several CCOF M10A2’s were on the streets as we flew through, massive 225mm cannons pounding them. Several A-1F’s droned by, only to be taken out my Red Star MiG-35’s doing pass by’s. Several F-22’s moved into to engage as well.

I looked at several destoryed SAM sites, along with a destroyed ZPU-5 AA Gun. I glanced at an active AA battery. It turned to face us as we came into view. I tried to get my railgun up to take it out, but the weapon was already firing its rounds on us. “Command, this is Cyclops One-Seven, we are going down, I repeat, we are going down. Send assist!” The pilot said as we smashed into the ground.

Well! I've gotta say, it looks like you have an interesting story here. I'm not quite sure what's going on, but seeing as this is chapter twenty-seven, that's to be expected.

One thing I noticed was that you used a LOT of official military designations for the vehicles and weapons. While that is accurate, it's not very useful if the reader doesn't know what all of those letters and numbers mean. 'The Russian armored personnel carrier' might be preferable to 'the BTR-80'. The former does a much better job of describing what the vehicle is.

The quality of writing was pretty good, but there were a couple of things I noticed. This may just be a pet peeve of mine, but I just don't think it sounds good to repeat words in a sentence. In the quote below, for example, it might sound better to replace 'streaked' with 'flashed' or 'shot'.

Quote:

A blue streak of energy streaked out

Also, while spellcheck is useful, it ain't a substitute for good, old-fashioned proofreading.

Quote:

I looked at several destoryed SAM sites,

Quote:

They feel back to a more defensible position

All in all, it looks like you have the makings of a good story. Just watch for the little things, and don't go overboard on the jargon.

Yeah, I see what you mean. I do go back and proofread it, although, its when I get writer block when I go back and do so. Jargon is also one of my faults. My friends have read it, and knew nothing about a GAU 19/A Chaingun, or Hydra 70 rocket. When I finish up the series, and go back all the way through it, rewriting parts, and the like, I'll fix up my jargon. And maybe my characterization. I seem to suck at that.

Yea I would have to agree about the jargon, it could get a bit confusing for someone with lack of military knowledge (not me btw, understand it and love it ). I would suggest using the codenames or slang for the vehicles after their initial introduction. For example, you mention a UH-1Y. When it's first introduced mention its full military designation, the fact it's a helicopter and its designation, which is Venom (I think). From then on you can just refer to them as Venoms. A reader without an interest in military vehicles will simply associate the word with the transport helicopter you mentioned, while the military buffs will still know the exact vehicle your referring to. Just a though.

Otherwise awesome read. Would definitely read this series.

Thu Mar 31, 2011 10:23 pm

Dissension

Devil Skirrl

Joined: Fri Oct 31, 2008 5:42 pmPosts: 8314Images: 0

Re: Writing Critique Thread

I hope it's all right for me to post this here; it's my Laws of Communication final.

This paper seeks to examine whether a false-light defamation case can be successfully proven in a Federal court. In doing so, three cases are studied: Suarez Corporaton v. CBS, Inc., KIRO, Inc., and Herb Weisbaum; Raymond Veilleux, Kelly Veilleux, and Peter Kennedy v. National Broadcasting Company, Alan Handel, and Fred Francis; and Sandra A. Boddie v. American Broadcasting Companies, Inc., Geraldo Rivera, Charles C. Thompson, and Maravilla Production Company, Inc. In each of these cases, individuals or corporations felt that their privacy had been invaded and their reputations damaged by claims made on air by reporters for major broadcast television networks (ABC, CBS, and NBC). The plaintiffs in each case felt that they had been victims of false-light defamation. Each case was ultimately appealed, and those appeals led to new legal precedents under which current and future trials may be judged. This paper is organized in such a way that the details of each case are discussed, followed by an interpretation of how the laws relating to the case (especially false-light invasion of privacy laws) are applied.

In Suarez Corporation v. CBS, Inc., KIRO, Inc., and Herb Weisbaum, the plaintiff (Suarez Corporation) sued the defendants for defamation and false light invasion of privacy. Suarez Corporation (hereafter also referred to as the plaintiff) is an Ohio-based direct marketing business that communicates with potential consumers through the mail, telemarketing, and promotional television broadcasts. Herb Weisbaum is a freelance journalist who occasionally works for KIRO-TV, owned by KIRO, Incorporated. KIRO-TV is a local affiliate of CBS, Incorporated's CBS News. In his capacity as a freelance journalist in 1991, Mr. Weisbaum began an investigation into nation-wide promotions by Lindenwold Fine Jewelers. He filled out an order form and submitted it to the Ohio-based promoter. He later contacted Suarez Corporation by telephone and requested a response to several questions in a letter written on KIRO-TV letterhead.

As part of a “CBS This Morning” television broadcast, CBS News aired a “consumer report” by Mr. Weisbaum, whom CBS identified as a reporter for its KIRO affiliate. In this report, titled “Gem Scams,” Mr. Weisbaum made damaging claims regarding the veracity of offers made by Suarez Corporation on behalf of Lindenwold Fine Jewelers. The specific promotions in question were distributed nationally through the mail and offered respondents a free cubic zirconium simulated diamond or synthetic royal ruby.

After this report aired, Suarez Corporation filed suit against CBS, KIRO, and Mr. Weisbaum (hereafter also referred to as the defendants). The plaintiff alleged that the defendants had made false and misleading statements about the availability of prizes in the promotion, the process required to obtain one's prize, and had claimed that the contest was not an honest and legitimate marketing campaign.

CBS, Inc. and Mr. Weisbaum's attorneys filed motions to dismiss the charges on the basis that the plaintiff had not requested a claim for compensation. KIRO, Inc. filed to dismiss the case claiming that KIRO had no personal jurisdiction and the lack of a claim for compensation by the plaintiff. Subsequently, CBS and Mr. Weisbaum re-filed their motions to dismiss on the basis of a lack of personal jurisdiction and KIRO revised its motion to reflect these changes. The District Court dismissed KIRO for lack of personal jurisdiction in the case and dismissed the plaintiff's claims of defamation and invasion of privacy for a lack of a claim for compensation on the plaintiff's behalf.

Suarez Corporation appealed the decision on the basis that KIRO, Inc. should have been under the District Court's personal jurisdiction. The plaintiff argued that the court had jurisdiction over KIRO in the case because Mr. Weisbaum was acting as an agent of that corporation at the time of the telephone and written contact and when the report aired on CBS. The U.S. Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit, found that the use of KIRO telephones and stationery did not imply agency on the behalf of Mr. Weisbaum and that the lower court's decision should therefore stand. It found that, in accordance with precedent, KIRO-TV was not responsible for Mr. Weisbaum's action and had not conferred actual authority on him regarding the investigation. The higher court upheld the dismissal of KIRO, Inc. from the proceedings.

Suarez Corporation also maintained that the case against CBS, Inc. and Mr. Weisbaum should not have been dismissed due to an inadequate filing. On review, the Court of Appeals determined that the filing was adequate under Federal law and overturned the dismissal. The plaintiff also alleged that the District Court acted improperly in applying Ohio law to the case, under which false-light defamation is not recognized as an invasion of privacy. The Appellate Court found that the District court had acted appropriately in that regard, however, and affirmed the dismissal of the case.

Case Interpretation

The key issue in this case was whether CBS and KIRO were responsible for statements made by Mr. Weisbaum during a CBS news broadcast. The plaintiff believed those statements were false and misleading, portraying Suarez Corporation in a negative light. To prove false-light invasion of privacy, the plaintiff must show that the false light in which the individual was placed would be offensive to a reasonable person and the publisher of the material was at fault when the publication was made. In this case, the statements made by the on-air reporter were clearly false. However, the defendants CBS, Inc. and KIRO, Inc. were not complicit in reporting this information. While the information was aired on a CBS program, KIRO had little or no involvement except that Mr. Weisbaum was occasionally employed by KIRO, Inc. in his role as a freelance journalist. Further, while the information in the report was misleading, it was not likely to be found offensive by an average person.

In addition, false-light invasion of privacy is not recognized in many states. Among these is Ohio, where this case originated. If the case had been tried using the laws of another state, it may have been possible to make a successful case for a jury to find in favor of the plaintiff. However, it is unlikely that such a decision could be made in summary judgment (by a judge, without the involvement of a jury). The plaintiffs could also have argued that CBS, Inc. was responsible for checking the veracity of the claims made by the freelance journalist. It is unknown whether CBS policy requires reports by unaffiliated personnel to be verified before airing, but it is possible that some of the misstatements could have been corrected before airing if this procedure were required.

The plaintiffs (Mr. Kennedy and his employers, Mr. And Mrs. Veilleux) filed against the defendants (Mr. Francis, Mr. Handel, and NBC) for “defamation, misrepresentation, intentional and negligent infliction of emotional distress, unreasonable publication of private facts, and false light invasion of privacy” in reference to a report that aired on an NBC program regarding long-distance truck drivers and motor vehicle accidents caused by such persons when overly tired. Mr. Kennedy is a long-haul truck driver employed by a company owned by Raymond and Kelly Veilleux. Mr. Handel is an NBC news producer and Mr. Frances is a long-standing NBC reporter. Mr. And Mrs. Veilleux claimed that Mr. Handel and Mr. Frances promised them that negative aspects of long-haul truck driving would not be included in the report and that the intention of the report was to defend and support the trucking industry. The final report, however, was very critical of not only the trucking industry in general, but specifically of the Veilleux's business. The report, which aired on “Dateline NBC,” portrayed Mr. Kennedy as an unsafe driver who regularly violated federal safety regulations and used illegal narcotics. The report indicated that such practices were commonplace in the trucking industry and that Ray Veilleux encouraged such behavior.

A District Court determined that Mr. Kennedy's claim of misrepresentation was invalid but that Ray's was not. All the plaintiffs' charges of intentional infliction of emotional distress and requests for punitive damages were rejected, but all other claims were allowed to proceed to trial. A jury awarded Ray Veilleux $300,000, Kelly Veilleux $50,000, and Peter Kennedy $175,000. The defendants rejected the judgment and requested a new trial. The judge determined that “viewing the trial evidence in a light most favorable to plaintiffs and drawing all justifiable inferences in their favor, there is a legally sufficient basis on which a reasonable jury could have rendered the verdict that this jury did.”

After this decision, the defendants filed an appeal. The U.S. First Circuit Court of Appeals heard the case and reversed the lower court's decisions. The decision in favor of Mr. And Mrs. Veilleux's defamation claim was overturned on the basis that NBC's “allegedly defamatory statements” were based on Kennedy's admissions to Dateline. The decision in favor of Ray Veilleux on the misrepresentation claim was also overturned. This judgment was made because the Appeals Court found that under Maine law, the statements made by NBC would be too vague to justify such action by the lower court. The negligent infliction of emotional distress claim was also overturned. It was the opinion of the Appellate Judges that the lower court's decision violated Maine's laws regarding misrepresentation because the defendants and plaintiffs had not entered into a “unique relationship between the parties” that would enable the plaintiffs' emotional well-being to be harmed. The invasion of privacy and false light claims were also overturned. The opinion of the court was that because of the nature of the report (public safety on national highways), there was an issue of public concern and therefore no right to privacy existed in relation to this subject. Claims for punitive damages were also rejected because the Appellate Judges found no indication of intentional malice on the defendants' behalf.

Case Interpretation

In this case, the plaintiffs believed that they had been lied to by the defendants. The result is that an unflattering image of the plaintiffs specifically and the trucking industry in general were created by a major media outlet. Whether the defendants promised a pro-trucking story seems to be irrelevant to the ensuing legal battles. Though the District Court weighed in heavily for the plaintiffs, almost all of its decisions were overturned by the Appeals Court. In false-light invasion of privacy, a plaintiff must prove that the false light in which the individual was placed would be offensive to a reasonable person and that the publisher of the material was at fault when the publication was made. Although a lower court ruled in favor of the plaintiffs in trial by jury, the standards of false-light invasion of privacy were not met. Mr. Kennedy was subjected to a random drug screening, which returned positive (indicating the presence of illegal narcotics in his blood stream). He also admitted during the period that he was being observed by the NBC crew that he frequently ignored Federal laws regarding the maximum number of hours that a long-distance truck driver may drive and also that he routinely falsified entries in his log book to cover up his activities. Whether Mr. And Mrs. Veilleux encouraged such behavior is at best difficult to prove, so their claim has a little more merit to it than Mr. Kennedy's. However, Maine law requires that the parties involved in a misrepresentation case must have entered into a “unique relationship” in order for the kind of emotional damages addressed in the lawsuit to have been inflicted. Because the allegations that Mr. Veilleux had encouraged his drivers to perform illegal actions like skipping mandated inspection points and falsifying log book entries to reflect a shorter driving period between rest stops came from one of the drivers, namely Mr. Kennedy, NBC and the other defendants were not responsible for their use in the final report.

The plaintiffs would have a stronger case for misrepresentation if the Maine statutes requiring a unique relationship were not in existence. By challenging the veracity of this standard, Mr. And Mrs. Veilleux could theoretically receive retribution for the misleading statements made against them.

Sandra A. Boddie (also referred to hereafter as the plaintiff) filed suit against American Broadcasting Companies, Inc. (ABC), Geraldo Rivera, Charles C. Thompson, and Maravilla Production Company, Inc. (hereafter also referred to as the defendants) alleging that the defendants had defamed her, invaded her privacy, placed her in a false light, and violated wiretapping laws. While investigating reports of judicial misconduct in Akron, Ohio, ABC asked Ms. Boddie to appear in a televised interview. The plaintiff agreed to be interviewed, but not to appear on camera. The interview was secretly videotaped, and a segment of the tape was included in the final report, “Injustice for All.” In response, Ms. Boddie filed suit against the defendants. A jury ruled in favor of the defendants on the false-light invasion of privacy charges and the District Judge vacated the wiretapping claim.

The plaintiff decided to appeal these findings. The case was accepted by the United States Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals. The Appellate Judges ruled that the District Court had improperly dismissed the illegal wiretapping allegation under U.S. Title III, which bans the nonconsensual interception or recording of another's communications. An exception to this general rule is carved out by section 2511(2)(d), which privileges a party to a communication to intercept and record that communication without the other party's consent "unless such communication is intercepted for the purpose of committing any criminal or tortious act... or for the purpose of committing any other injurious act."

Case Interpretation

This case is disturbing because the plaintiff alleges that the reporter and producer not only lied to her but also that an off-camera interview was secretly recorded and televised as part of the final report. The decision of the lower court to vacate the wiretapping allegation was troubling. Federal law prohibits one person or entity from recording communications with another without the other individual's consent except in very specific circumstances. While this case was being tried in the Sixth District Court of Appeals, Congress changed the statutes regarding illegal wiretapping, removing language that included the term “injurious purpose.” In light of this change, the District Court reversed its decision on the wiretapping issue.

This case is also interesting because though the plaintiff alleges false-light invasion of privacy, she agreed to participate in an interview regarding the misconduct of a judge in which the judge was trading leniency in criminal cases for sexual favors. The plaintiff chose to participate in this interview of her own free will and objected only to being videotaped.

The standards regarding false-light invasion of privacy clearly state that it is illegal to publicize material that places an individual in a false light if the false light in which the individual was placed would be offensive to a reasonable person and the publisher of the material was at fault when the publication was made. The publishers in this case (ABC, et al) were clearly at fault for violating a pre-interview agreement with the plaintiff. The light in which the plaintiff was portrayed would certainly be found offensive by a majority of reasonable persons. Remarkably, however, the plaintiff was not placed in a false light. She was portrayed only in the light she agreed to be, whether on- or off-camera. The false-light standard clearly should not apply if the affected individual is not portrayed in an inaccurate manner.

This case, like the first this paper discusses, originated in Ohio. Therefore, the defendants could have successfully had the false-light accusations stripped because Ohio law does not recognize false-light defamation in any form.

Conclusion

All the cases presented herein were brought against major American media outlets by individuals or small, privately-owned companies. Each of the plaintiffs alleged false-light defamation, even in cases originating in states that do not recognize false light as a valid form of invasion of privacy. The defendants ultimately won each of these cases because the plaintiffs' claims were flawed. Whether the plaintiffs were exposed for actual wrongdoing or their offenses were blown out of proportion by the mass media, technicalities allowed what could otherwise be valid claims to be defeated in court. There is much leeway in the interpretation of false-light privacy laws. Many states do not even recognize the right to be defended from false-light defamation. While the media should be able to bring illegal or morally questionable behavior to the public's attention, they must not do so in a way that infringes on the rights of individuals to be free from speculative and false accusations.

To prevent lawsuits alleging false-light privacy rights have been violated, the media must take steps to defend itself. Journalists should report only information that is known to be factually correct or from reliable sources with no reason to provide falsely incriminating evidence against the subject of a report. Reporters should be cautious to inform their audience that those suspected of wrongdoing may not have done anything wrong. Use of terms such as “allegedly” is one way to do so. Ultimately, the media industry should be proactive in preventing individuals from being falsely accused. Leads should be scrutinized and information confirmed whenever possible.

_________________I can be whatever you want me to be, which sounds really creepy, now that I think about it.

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests

You cannot post new topics in this forumYou cannot reply to topics in this forumYou cannot edit your posts in this forumYou cannot delete your posts in this forumYou cannot post attachments in this forum